It is interesting to watch the buildup of China. China apparently is now one of the few nations in the world which has money in the bank, and is a growing power in the world financial scene. Not only that, but China is growing stronger militarily. According to a recent report, China has made impressive gains in modernizing its armed forces. Apparently, China has announced a new stealth jet some years ahead of the time frame expected by American analysts, improvements to its carrier program, and it has substantially increased various missile programs as well as the quantity of missiles in its arsenal. The report suggests that China is moving to increase its power projection in its home region.
To augment its growth, China seems to be moving to make financial and trade arrangements with nations in the middle east region, presumably to secure sources of petroleum and other resources. It may be inferred that China also hopes to influence the middle eastern nations to support China as it becomes a more dominant player in the world.
However, one wonders if the Chinese leaders will be able to understand and learn a lesson that American leaders have not yet taken to heart.
When Russian forces were fighting in Afghanistan from 1979-1989 to support the Marxist government known as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the Americans, among others, provided support to the Muslim freedom fighters. The war became essentially a proxy war, a part of the cold war between east and west. The Mujahideen, the freedom fighters, reportedly received training, weapons, and material from America during that time.
Fast forward to 2001. America is hit on 9/11, and goes to war against the Taliban. Nearly ten years later, America is still at war in Afghanistan, and appears to be bogged down like the Soviets were in their conflict. Why is that? Is it not reasonable to assume that the Afghani people would have felt some gratitude to America for her support in the earlier conflict? The answer is that it is not. The Muslims do not want freedom in the sense that America understands it any more than they wanted socialism in the sense that Russia understands it. They accepted America's support because they like our guns (to quote Bin Laden) and laughed up their sleeve at the stupidity of Americans for offering it.
There is an almost universal idea that religious people are stupid and superstitious and can be educated out of those mindless superstitions. None of those assumptions are true; very often the highly educated come to profound faith, and "religious crackdowns" typically backfire because they disclose the moral vacuum of those who conduct the crackdown, and merely drive religion underground. Muslims are no exception. However, Muslims have their own agenda for world dominion, and they are busy exporting it world-wide. It includes daily prayer, forced conversions, shari'a law, and theocratic government; it does not include communist socialism.
One wonders whether, while the Chinese prepare to compete with America and other countries, they have learned this lesson, and are prepared to compete with this other agenda, because the Muslim agenda works quietly over the long term to change the nature of every nation it enters.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Faith- why, and how?
There is a line in "Miracle on 34th Street" that you may remember. Maureen O'Hara, as the mother, has always taught her child a strict pragmatic view of the world. Late in the film, she has come to realize that just maybe the old fellow, Kris Kringle, who claims to be Santa Claus, actually is Santa- and if he isn't, he personifies what a Santa Claus should be, and she is trying to explain to her young daughter her sudden change of heart. So by way of explanation, she says, "Faith is believing in things when commonsense tells you not to."
In an article on CNN Belief Blog, Stephen Prothero compares the response of the Puritans to the August 1635 hurricane to the modern secular response to Hurricane Irene. He notes that the Puritans viewed their hurricane as a judgment from God, while our more secular response relies on the predictions of meteorologists and experts. We know how hurricanes form, we know how to predict their movement with some confidence, we know how to predict strengthening and weakening. But knowing the "how" does nothing to help us with the "why."
You see, the forecasters tell us there is a certain chance that a tropical storm will form, but they can't say why precisely that storm at that time. If it had been a day sooner or later, the wind and water strength and temperatures would have been different; it would have been a different storm.
That holds true everywhere. Not all seeds germinate, for example, and while farmers know this and can often predict a germination rate, it doesn't explain why, and it certainly does not indicate what seeds will lie dormant. Meteorologists predict scattered showers, but they can't tell whether your ballgame will be rained out or whether the shower will pass you by. A motorist traveling hundreds of miles is killed in a collision- accidents are statistically predictable, but why that particular motorist, when out of all those hundreds of miles, being 50 feet ahead or behind the point of accident would have made all the difference.
In modern culture, we assume there is no "why" and that all processes are the result of random chance. It is such a basic assumption that Prothero doesn't even address it. However, that is nothing but an arrogant assumption based on a secular faith that there is no God who can choose to cause a particular event for a reason, so randomness must be the cause. Yet God can indeed be the "why" behind an event.
Which brings us back to Maureen O'Hara. The faith she talks about is not faith, but only credulous gullibility. The Christianity on which America was built is based on a secure foundation of history, evidence and logic, and that is what the Puritans understood. They understood that there could be a "why." Without having satellites, computers, and mathematics, they knew full well that God could for his own purposes nudge a thousand variables into place. We have gained some understanding of "how," but in the process have lost the ability to comprehend, and in fact have become too intellectually weak to discuss or even admit the possibility, that there can by a "why."
In an article on CNN Belief Blog, Stephen Prothero compares the response of the Puritans to the August 1635 hurricane to the modern secular response to Hurricane Irene. He notes that the Puritans viewed their hurricane as a judgment from God, while our more secular response relies on the predictions of meteorologists and experts. We know how hurricanes form, we know how to predict their movement with some confidence, we know how to predict strengthening and weakening. But knowing the "how" does nothing to help us with the "why."
You see, the forecasters tell us there is a certain chance that a tropical storm will form, but they can't say why precisely that storm at that time. If it had been a day sooner or later, the wind and water strength and temperatures would have been different; it would have been a different storm.
That holds true everywhere. Not all seeds germinate, for example, and while farmers know this and can often predict a germination rate, it doesn't explain why, and it certainly does not indicate what seeds will lie dormant. Meteorologists predict scattered showers, but they can't tell whether your ballgame will be rained out or whether the shower will pass you by. A motorist traveling hundreds of miles is killed in a collision- accidents are statistically predictable, but why that particular motorist, when out of all those hundreds of miles, being 50 feet ahead or behind the point of accident would have made all the difference.
In modern culture, we assume there is no "why" and that all processes are the result of random chance. It is such a basic assumption that Prothero doesn't even address it. However, that is nothing but an arrogant assumption based on a secular faith that there is no God who can choose to cause a particular event for a reason, so randomness must be the cause. Yet God can indeed be the "why" behind an event.
Which brings us back to Maureen O'Hara. The faith she talks about is not faith, but only credulous gullibility. The Christianity on which America was built is based on a secure foundation of history, evidence and logic, and that is what the Puritans understood. They understood that there could be a "why." Without having satellites, computers, and mathematics, they knew full well that God could for his own purposes nudge a thousand variables into place. We have gained some understanding of "how," but in the process have lost the ability to comprehend, and in fact have become too intellectually weak to discuss or even admit the possibility, that there can by a "why."
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Dominionism and the New Amerika
The Mainstream Media is now going to work, gonna do it's job- the Presidential Campaign cycle is gearing up, and it's time to vet the candidates. You recall how rigorously reporters vetted the candidates in the '08 campaign, or at least Palin. Digging through trash, seeking out the political enemies to get the real dirt. And McCain, who after all had released only 1200 pages of documents, whereas Obama had released over 1 (2, apparently, a Doctor's statement and a short form birth certificate). It would be racist to ask for more from a liberal communist activist who is black, you know.
Of course, it would still be racist to ask for any background records from Mr. Obama, and probably superfluous, since by his performance "Jimmy" Obama has made obvious the extent of his ability to fulfill the duties of the Presidency.
Anyway, over at CNN, one of their columnists has made a startling discovery. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have ties to Dominionism! Most likely, you will have to look that up, too, and there is a definition on Wikipedia. The short definition from Wikipedia: "Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States." Evidently, there is a liberal label to demonize any type of conservative activity.
First, the definition of Dominionism is nonsense. Christian belief holds that God has influence over all parts of the life of a Christian. Either a Christian must deny a tenet of the faith, or be denied a fundamental freedom and obligation to participate in the political process on the grounds that religion will influence the person's vote and thus influence the political process.
Second, whether civil government is "secular" depends partly upon the definition of secular. If secular means "not a religious organization," that's fine. If it means secular as found in the Humanist Manifesto and as often used in the media, then no. Secular Humanism is a self-declared and legally recognized religion, based on faith in humanity and rejection of any idea of God.
"Secular" cannot mean the right to exclude any religious viewpoint from the public square, either. That raises some serious First Amendment concerns about chilling both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Finally, and most importantly, whether American civil government is, or was intended to be, "secular" also must be determined from a historical view. Quoting President Adams,"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Doesn't sound like he thought secular would work in America, but what would he know?
What about President Washington, remembered by earlier generations as the Father of our Country. Take a page from his farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Sounds like a Dominionist to me- perhaps he was just confused.
Perhaps we need a better source, so we will go to the top. The United States Supreme Court. In an 1892 case, it reviewed the history of the United States and said the following: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." (emphasis added) The Court also noted that, "[w]hile because of a general recognition of this truth that question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph vs. the Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law...." Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 et. seq. (1892). The Courts call "common law" that body of law which consists of all the decisions of the Courts.
No, Adams was not confused, nor was Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that this country was never intended as what we now call a "secular" nation. Our founders and our courts would have been called Dominionist by Americans of today, because we have thrown over our roots and denied our heritage.
Even in those cases starting in the 60's where the more recent Courts removed the Bible from America's schools and imposed "separation of church and state," they acknowledged that it was without precedent. History does not support what has been done and taught in America today. And please do not bother citing the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli-"whereas" recitals in a document do not really have binding legal authority, and, yes, Jefferson did write a letter referring to separation of church and state- not only was the letter not a legal document, but Jefferson said the principle protected the church, not the state.
To paraphrase President Reagan, it's not that liberals don't know anything, it's that they know so much that isn't so. And they have been busy since the 1960's teaching much of America's public a lot that isn't so. Liberals want, it seems, a New Amerika, where the little people must ride low-polluting bikes and mass transit to do their benevolent master's bidding while their elite overseeing masters fly pollution-spewing private jumbo jets from luxury hotel to luxury hotel and are pampered by large entourages.
In the coming campaign, there will likely be many articles like this CNN commentary, and readers would be well advised to not only test stories for veracity, but to test the assumptions and conclusions against historic American principles. Anyone not willing to do that risks giving the liberals their New Amerika, and that will prove to be a high price indeed.
Of course, it would still be racist to ask for any background records from Mr. Obama, and probably superfluous, since by his performance "Jimmy" Obama has made obvious the extent of his ability to fulfill the duties of the Presidency.
Anyway, over at CNN, one of their columnists has made a startling discovery. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have ties to Dominionism! Most likely, you will have to look that up, too, and there is a definition on Wikipedia. The short definition from Wikipedia: "Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States." Evidently, there is a liberal label to demonize any type of conservative activity.
First, the definition of Dominionism is nonsense. Christian belief holds that God has influence over all parts of the life of a Christian. Either a Christian must deny a tenet of the faith, or be denied a fundamental freedom and obligation to participate in the political process on the grounds that religion will influence the person's vote and thus influence the political process.
Second, whether civil government is "secular" depends partly upon the definition of secular. If secular means "not a religious organization," that's fine. If it means secular as found in the Humanist Manifesto and as often used in the media, then no. Secular Humanism is a self-declared and legally recognized religion, based on faith in humanity and rejection of any idea of God.
"Secular" cannot mean the right to exclude any religious viewpoint from the public square, either. That raises some serious First Amendment concerns about chilling both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Finally, and most importantly, whether American civil government is, or was intended to be, "secular" also must be determined from a historical view. Quoting President Adams,"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Doesn't sound like he thought secular would work in America, but what would he know?
What about President Washington, remembered by earlier generations as the Father of our Country. Take a page from his farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Sounds like a Dominionist to me- perhaps he was just confused.
Perhaps we need a better source, so we will go to the top. The United States Supreme Court. In an 1892 case, it reviewed the history of the United States and said the following: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." (emphasis added) The Court also noted that, "[w]hile because of a general recognition of this truth that question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph vs. the Commonwealth, it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law...." Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 et. seq. (1892). The Courts call "common law" that body of law which consists of all the decisions of the Courts.
No, Adams was not confused, nor was Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that this country was never intended as what we now call a "secular" nation. Our founders and our courts would have been called Dominionist by Americans of today, because we have thrown over our roots and denied our heritage.
Even in those cases starting in the 60's where the more recent Courts removed the Bible from America's schools and imposed "separation of church and state," they acknowledged that it was without precedent. History does not support what has been done and taught in America today. And please do not bother citing the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli-"whereas" recitals in a document do not really have binding legal authority, and, yes, Jefferson did write a letter referring to separation of church and state- not only was the letter not a legal document, but Jefferson said the principle protected the church, not the state.
To paraphrase President Reagan, it's not that liberals don't know anything, it's that they know so much that isn't so. And they have been busy since the 1960's teaching much of America's public a lot that isn't so. Liberals want, it seems, a New Amerika, where the little people must ride low-polluting bikes and mass transit to do their benevolent master's bidding while their elite overseeing masters fly pollution-spewing private jumbo jets from luxury hotel to luxury hotel and are pampered by large entourages.
In the coming campaign, there will likely be many articles like this CNN commentary, and readers would be well advised to not only test stories for veracity, but to test the assumptions and conclusions against historic American principles. Anyone not willing to do that risks giving the liberals their New Amerika, and that will prove to be a high price indeed.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
More Consequences of Relative Truth
One name for what is occurring in America is called "the criminalization of America." In actuality, it's just more consequences of relative truth. A recent Washington Post article talked about the dramatic rise in the number of tickets issued to school children. Not tickets to social events, but tickets issued by School Resource Officers- criminal citations to appear in court. While the article title refers to the situation in Texas, that's just to badmouth Texas and Governor Perry, since the text refers to the same problem in Connecticut as well as Chicago (remember Rahm?)- it's evidently a nationwide phenomenon.
Schools, as you probably know, have had a dramatic rise in both the rate and severity of in-school discipline problems. As you also probably know, schools have had severe restrictions placed on the nature and severity of discipline which may be imposed. With the addition of police in children's schoolyards, many school teachers and administrators have simply thrown up their hands and dumped their youthful charges into the criminal system. Examples in the article refer to 10-year-old boys in a tussle, junior-high boyfriend and girlfriend arguing about breaking up, another couple arguing and pouring milk on each other, and so forth.
One of the judges hearing these criminal cases says the purpose of his sentences is to help children "to learn, to make good choices." Sounds good. No doubt well-intentioned. However, dumping these kids into the criminal system will have negative long-term consequences. While a juvenile criminal record may be confidential, and traditionally has been, don't rely on that. Laws change. Legislatures have been busily removing confidentiality because some juveniles tend to move on to adult crimes. Once charges have been filed, it doesn't matter whether the conduct was "childish" or criminally motivated.
The root cause of all this is a lack of internal moral structure. Colleges propound that there is no truth- it's all relative, whatever you believe is right, is right for you. Schools teach the children that they are evolved animals, and animals just do what they want. Advertising in the media says, "Just do it," and "Have it your way." The Courts now say it is illegal to teach morality, and the Schools generally take this to mean it is illegal to talk about God. Even the Churches teach that God is here to meet "felt needs" and cause emotional happiness, and for the most part ignore what the Bible actually teaches. In every context and venue, children are taught that "good" means "you have a right to get what you want, when you want it and how you want it- you are supposed to have life your way."
How, in that context, can children be expected to know- or even comprehend- the idea that a "good choice" may be different from the "choice that makes them feel good" when they make it?
If the children cannot be taught that there is an overarching external morality, they cannot develop an internal moral structure. Relative truth, the idea that you have the right to whatever you want and your desire is paramount over any consideration of anyone and everyone else, once accepted, is at odds with the ability to maintain and live in a civilized culture. No number of armed guards, no regime or bulk of laws or regulations, no matter how oppressive, will ever be found sufficient to keep even a pretext of civilization in a land which refuses to acknowledge and teach morality.
Schools, as you probably know, have had a dramatic rise in both the rate and severity of in-school discipline problems. As you also probably know, schools have had severe restrictions placed on the nature and severity of discipline which may be imposed. With the addition of police in children's schoolyards, many school teachers and administrators have simply thrown up their hands and dumped their youthful charges into the criminal system. Examples in the article refer to 10-year-old boys in a tussle, junior-high boyfriend and girlfriend arguing about breaking up, another couple arguing and pouring milk on each other, and so forth.
One of the judges hearing these criminal cases says the purpose of his sentences is to help children "to learn, to make good choices." Sounds good. No doubt well-intentioned. However, dumping these kids into the criminal system will have negative long-term consequences. While a juvenile criminal record may be confidential, and traditionally has been, don't rely on that. Laws change. Legislatures have been busily removing confidentiality because some juveniles tend to move on to adult crimes. Once charges have been filed, it doesn't matter whether the conduct was "childish" or criminally motivated.
The root cause of all this is a lack of internal moral structure. Colleges propound that there is no truth- it's all relative, whatever you believe is right, is right for you. Schools teach the children that they are evolved animals, and animals just do what they want. Advertising in the media says, "Just do it," and "Have it your way." The Courts now say it is illegal to teach morality, and the Schools generally take this to mean it is illegal to talk about God. Even the Churches teach that God is here to meet "felt needs" and cause emotional happiness, and for the most part ignore what the Bible actually teaches. In every context and venue, children are taught that "good" means "you have a right to get what you want, when you want it and how you want it- you are supposed to have life your way."
How, in that context, can children be expected to know- or even comprehend- the idea that a "good choice" may be different from the "choice that makes them feel good" when they make it?
If the children cannot be taught that there is an overarching external morality, they cannot develop an internal moral structure. Relative truth, the idea that you have the right to whatever you want and your desire is paramount over any consideration of anyone and everyone else, once accepted, is at odds with the ability to maintain and live in a civilized culture. No number of armed guards, no regime or bulk of laws or regulations, no matter how oppressive, will ever be found sufficient to keep even a pretext of civilization in a land which refuses to acknowledge and teach morality.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
A Teacher's Remarks
A Florida teacher's remarks on his Facebook page have earned him an investigation and temporary suspension from his teaching position. The remarks posted by Jerry Buell on his personal Facebook account, from his own personal computer at his home, were made in response to the approval of gay civil unions in New York State.
According to the Lake County School district, the comments were disturbing because gay students might read the statements and feel frightened or intimidated by the teacher's anti-gay comments. It's doubtful that the school district ever investigates pro-gay comments which might make a heterosexually-oriented or religiously-oriented student feel frightened or intimidated. As a matter of fact, it is much more likely that the school district tacitly, if not as a matter of policy, approves of pro-gay rhetoric and teaching without any regard for other views. Even strongly held religious views, where not openly mocked, are at best not considered a valid basis for refusing to hold "Tolerant" pro-gay views in most public-paid educational venues.
Actually, the most disturbing element of this entire incident is the school's insistence that Mr. Buell's Facebook page is not private. The District's Communication Officer "also disputed the notion that Buell’s Facebook account is private. 'He has (more than) 700 friends,' he said. 'How private is that – really?'"
How private, indeed. Either this is a profound failure to understand the First Amendment, or a deliberate misdirection by the Lake County School District. The First Amendment is not limited to protecting one's right to speak in private- it protects the right to speak private opinions in a public venue. This teacher did not give up his right to have private opinions, nor his right to publicly express opinions. He does not have the right to suggest that he is speaking for his employer, but there is no suggestion that anyone thought he was a school district spokesman. Does it frighten no one else that this school district seems to not understand or care about First Amendment freedoms?
The investigation by the Lake County School District appears to be nothing more than retribution against the teacher for holding opinions which are not consonant with those held by the "Tolerant" in the school district. One can only hope that a Court can be found which would recognize and protect Mr. Buell's First Amendment rights.
According to the Lake County School district, the comments were disturbing because gay students might read the statements and feel frightened or intimidated by the teacher's anti-gay comments. It's doubtful that the school district ever investigates pro-gay comments which might make a heterosexually-oriented or religiously-oriented student feel frightened or intimidated. As a matter of fact, it is much more likely that the school district tacitly, if not as a matter of policy, approves of pro-gay rhetoric and teaching without any regard for other views. Even strongly held religious views, where not openly mocked, are at best not considered a valid basis for refusing to hold "Tolerant" pro-gay views in most public-paid educational venues.
Actually, the most disturbing element of this entire incident is the school's insistence that Mr. Buell's Facebook page is not private. The District's Communication Officer "also disputed the notion that Buell’s Facebook account is private. 'He has (more than) 700 friends,' he said. 'How private is that – really?'"
How private, indeed. Either this is a profound failure to understand the First Amendment, or a deliberate misdirection by the Lake County School District. The First Amendment is not limited to protecting one's right to speak in private- it protects the right to speak private opinions in a public venue. This teacher did not give up his right to have private opinions, nor his right to publicly express opinions. He does not have the right to suggest that he is speaking for his employer, but there is no suggestion that anyone thought he was a school district spokesman. Does it frighten no one else that this school district seems to not understand or care about First Amendment freedoms?
The investigation by the Lake County School District appears to be nothing more than retribution against the teacher for holding opinions which are not consonant with those held by the "Tolerant" in the school district. One can only hope that a Court can be found which would recognize and protect Mr. Buell's First Amendment rights.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws.
The Obama Administration, as you no doubt know, has released a new set of regulations on Deportation. While current law says that illegal immigrants are to be deported, these new regs implement the failed Dream Act criteria, because, the Administration says, it is too busy to comply with the law. In other words, the Obama Administration is simply writing the regulations it would have put in place had the Dream Act passed, and they will implement them under Executive authority.
Again, this seems to be a pattern with this President and his lackeys.
Remember the fuss over the issuance of offshore drilling permits? The Obama Administration wanted to put a stop to offshore drilling, so they put a new review procedure in place, and permits simply did not get approved. Of course, permits were not denied, either. When the oil producers went to court, even the Court's orders could not expedite the process- the bureaucrats were going as fast as they could, they said.
Or what about the Administration's record of compliance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests? Remember, again, Obama's promise that his would be the most transparent administration ever- no closed door meetings or backroom deals. Well, Judicial Watch had to sue to get access to visitor logs to the White House. The public owns the place, but Obama isn't anxious that the public gets to know who came to visit. Since the Administration realized that the logs would become public, they have moved their meetings out of the White House. As far as FOIA requests go, those seem to be denied at a higher rate than just any other Administration, and Bush was far more transparent than this fellow.
There is also Obamacare. Under the premise supporting that law, the government can limit any activity, regulate any activity, or require any activity it desires in the name of "interstate commerce", a premise which is the subject of intense litigation across the nation.
The fundamental principle of the Obama Administration seems to be "Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws." After all, if you can do whatever you want and you are not accountable to anyone, you don't need laws. Laws and even the Constitution are, in the view of this President, meaningless "living" documents that can be cited when convenient and otherwise ignored. Tyranny may well be the end result in America if our politicians and our citizens cannot put a stop to this behavior.
Again, this seems to be a pattern with this President and his lackeys.
Remember the fuss over the issuance of offshore drilling permits? The Obama Administration wanted to put a stop to offshore drilling, so they put a new review procedure in place, and permits simply did not get approved. Of course, permits were not denied, either. When the oil producers went to court, even the Court's orders could not expedite the process- the bureaucrats were going as fast as they could, they said.
Or what about the Administration's record of compliance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests? Remember, again, Obama's promise that his would be the most transparent administration ever- no closed door meetings or backroom deals. Well, Judicial Watch had to sue to get access to visitor logs to the White House. The public owns the place, but Obama isn't anxious that the public gets to know who came to visit. Since the Administration realized that the logs would become public, they have moved their meetings out of the White House. As far as FOIA requests go, those seem to be denied at a higher rate than just any other Administration, and Bush was far more transparent than this fellow.
There is also Obamacare. Under the premise supporting that law, the government can limit any activity, regulate any activity, or require any activity it desires in the name of "interstate commerce", a premise which is the subject of intense litigation across the nation.
The fundamental principle of the Obama Administration seems to be "Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws." After all, if you can do whatever you want and you are not accountable to anyone, you don't need laws. Laws and even the Constitution are, in the view of this President, meaningless "living" documents that can be cited when convenient and otherwise ignored. Tyranny may well be the end result in America if our politicians and our citizens cannot put a stop to this behavior.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Consent of the Governed
A recent Rasmussen poll reported that just 17% of Americans believe the government still has the consent of the government, while 83% do not believe the government has the consent of the governed. According to Rasmussen, that is the lowest number ever recorded for that indicator. Watch Rasmussen comment on that poll here.
That 83%, however, masks what is, at least from a conservative point of view, a more frightening undercurrent. Another Rasmussen poll, released August 3, says that while 84% of mainstream Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, 67% of the political class think America is headed in the right direction. If that August 3rd poll is correct, then there is a large constituency of Americans who not only think the government does not have the consent of the governed, but that the consent of the governed is irrelevant or even undesirable.
This highlights the elitist nature of a group of citizens of this country, a group which tells us "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
That group, and their elitist assumption that they are entitled to rule the "great unwashed" (that refers to you, condescendingly also known as the "little people"), represents one of the most terrible threats to American self-governance. No person who ever holds these views should be allowed anywhere near any governing position, or any teaching position, for that matter, if America is to survive as a republic, "that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That 83%, however, masks what is, at least from a conservative point of view, a more frightening undercurrent. Another Rasmussen poll, released August 3, says that while 84% of mainstream Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, 67% of the political class think America is headed in the right direction. If that August 3rd poll is correct, then there is a large constituency of Americans who not only think the government does not have the consent of the governed, but that the consent of the governed is irrelevant or even undesirable.
This highlights the elitist nature of a group of citizens of this country, a group which tells us "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
That group, and their elitist assumption that they are entitled to rule the "great unwashed" (that refers to you, condescendingly also known as the "little people"), represents one of the most terrible threats to American self-governance. No person who ever holds these views should be allowed anywhere near any governing position, or any teaching position, for that matter, if America is to survive as a republic, "that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Friday, August 5, 2011
They were warned- S&P downgrade US
They were warned. Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Boehner, Ms. Pelosi, and all the rest who voted for this debt deal disaster. They knew that S&P had warned of a credit downgrade unless they got the financial house of the American government in order. They knew that a $4 Trillion reduction in the deficit was considered the minimum necessary to keep the credit rating. They knew that new taxes would kill any possible recovery. The Tea Party also warned government leaders of the threat to America's credibility, but they, like S&P, were ignored, demonized, or belittled. There is not room, said Congressional leaders, for Principles, only Compromise at any cost. So Congress and the President came up with a workaround for the President's tax demands- they put authority to increase taxes in the hands of an unaccountable, and Constitutionally dubious, Congressional committee. They came up with a deal to dig America's debt grave deeper by $2.5 Trillion- the largest debt increase in history, yet mostly already spent.
The credit rating agencies already know this debt will be hard to repay, and they know there is little likelihood that our Congress will have the backbone to cut spending. So America's cherished AAA credit rating is downgraded. In response, our government villainizes the credit agency, and denies any responsibility.
This Congress and this President need to be held accountable for this financial boondoggle, and those Tea Party Freshmen who had the backbone to stand against this "debt deal" should be recognized.
The credit rating agencies already know this debt will be hard to repay, and they know there is little likelihood that our Congress will have the backbone to cut spending. So America's cherished AAA credit rating is downgraded. In response, our government villainizes the credit agency, and denies any responsibility.
This Congress and this President need to be held accountable for this financial boondoggle, and those Tea Party Freshmen who had the backbone to stand against this "debt deal" should be recognized.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Debt Deal- no winner!
A commentator from TIME prognosticated just the other day on the effect of the Congressional Debt Deal on various groups in the public at large. The military, obviously, he deemed a loser under the deal. As our government is increasingly entangling our military in dangerous foreign wars, like Iraq and Afghanistan, and "non-wars" such as Libya, liberal ideologues are waging their own war on the military. Liberals cling with fanatical devotion to the principle that if you disarm yourself, no one will ever hurt or attack you. To achieve that enlightened end, the military must be reduced, if the hate-filled, blood-lusting conservatives cannot be convinced to eliminate it altogether. So, military cuts are the one part of the debt deal you can expect to see enacted.
Another group, on the other hand, was declared a winner- Wall Street. Wall Street seems not to have bought the argument that the debt deal was good for America, however. Since the outline of the debt deal became clear, and after it was enacted, Wall Street has been diving. The Dow Jones Industrial dropped over 512 points just today, the worst drop since December, 2008, and part of a streak of losses not seen since Jimmy Carter was President. Jimmy Carter was, like our Mr. Obama, presumably well-intentioned but simply out of his depth in the Presidency.
The media, mostly staffed by "Jimmy" Obama's chorus, refuses to talk about or even mention the possibility that the plunge of the Dow is related to the debt deal. You will read about rattled nerves or confusion in the market, but not the debt deal. The truth, though, is that Wall Street issued warnings about the debt deal during the negotiations. Remember all those statements by Standard & Poor about the credit rating? They did not say "spend more money," they said the Feds needed to reduce debt by at least $4 Trillion Dollars. That didn't happen. Instead, we got a debt increase that immediately threw us over the 100% Debt to GDP ratio, meaning that thanks to the moderates and liberals, our government now owes more money than we could pay in one year at 100 percent taxation.
This is just what the Tea Party said would happen, and they are still being bashed for holding the government hostage from the tax, borrow, print and spend crowd, those legislators who apparently do not believe money ever has to be paid back. Everybody got into the act- Republican Senator McCain infamously called the Tea Party "hobbits." McCain apparently never saw the movie or read the Lord of the Rings books or he would know that the hobbits were the real heroes in the story. Only the hobbits had enough character to carry the dangerous One Ring of the "Lord of Doom" into the heart of enemy territory to destroy it. McCain has proven he's no hobbit.
While Republicans like O'Connell and Boehner have nearly worn themselves out waving the white flag of surrender to liberals, one can only hope the Tea Party legislators will remember their roots. Wall Street is already showing us how dangerous the liberal spending binge is to our economy.
Another group, on the other hand, was declared a winner- Wall Street. Wall Street seems not to have bought the argument that the debt deal was good for America, however. Since the outline of the debt deal became clear, and after it was enacted, Wall Street has been diving. The Dow Jones Industrial dropped over 512 points just today, the worst drop since December, 2008, and part of a streak of losses not seen since Jimmy Carter was President. Jimmy Carter was, like our Mr. Obama, presumably well-intentioned but simply out of his depth in the Presidency.
The media, mostly staffed by "Jimmy" Obama's chorus, refuses to talk about or even mention the possibility that the plunge of the Dow is related to the debt deal. You will read about rattled nerves or confusion in the market, but not the debt deal. The truth, though, is that Wall Street issued warnings about the debt deal during the negotiations. Remember all those statements by Standard & Poor about the credit rating? They did not say "spend more money," they said the Feds needed to reduce debt by at least $4 Trillion Dollars. That didn't happen. Instead, we got a debt increase that immediately threw us over the 100% Debt to GDP ratio, meaning that thanks to the moderates and liberals, our government now owes more money than we could pay in one year at 100 percent taxation.
This is just what the Tea Party said would happen, and they are still being bashed for holding the government hostage from the tax, borrow, print and spend crowd, those legislators who apparently do not believe money ever has to be paid back. Everybody got into the act- Republican Senator McCain infamously called the Tea Party "hobbits." McCain apparently never saw the movie or read the Lord of the Rings books or he would know that the hobbits were the real heroes in the story. Only the hobbits had enough character to carry the dangerous One Ring of the "Lord of Doom" into the heart of enemy territory to destroy it. McCain has proven he's no hobbit.
While Republicans like O'Connell and Boehner have nearly worn themselves out waving the white flag of surrender to liberals, one can only hope the Tea Party legislators will remember their roots. Wall Street is already showing us how dangerous the liberal spending binge is to our economy.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Obama smiling
Obama is smiling about the debt ceiling "limit" plan that the Democrats and moderate Republicans have put forward. He didn't get his trillion dollar tax increase, but tax increases are still possible under the plan because Congress can consider them in step three deficit reduction measures. Also, since this deal does not address the Bush tax cuts, those rates will probably be allowed to expire so that taxes actually will go up, but only on earned income to allow the truly rich to avoid taxes. Obama has never been concerned about the national debt, and this "limit" plan is actually a license to spend.
House Minority Leader Pelosi, who couldn't show the public or any other Representatives what was in Obamacare, or even let anyone read it until they passed it, hypocritically refused to comment on the debt deal until she had seen it in writing. After reading it, Pelosi complained that the debt deal raised no revenue from the rich. If Pelosi is that concerned, maybe she could just donate back some of that stimulus money which apparently somehow stimulated her personal net worth by 62 percent last year alone with income probably exempt from all those tax increases she favors. Funny how a person with "only" 35 Million Dollars isn't one of those rich people who can afford to pay more.
House Majority Leader Boehner says, "It's all spending cuts." That is only true if you count spending cuts as Washington does, which is to reduce increases in spending. In reality, it is very hard to find any real spending cuts in this package other than cuts to the military, which is frightening given the number of theaters in various parts of the world our government is committed to presently, and the number of countries involved in internal violence which could engulf our military resources at any time. Liberals and moderates are always happy to engage the U.S. militarily, but also always prefer to pretend that the military does not need to exist.
This debt deal is actually the largest debt ceiling increase in history, following on the back of last year's largest debt ceiling increase in history. According to a cnsnews article, records show that the next largest increases in debt occurred under the Presidencies of "W" Bush and Bush, Sr., both moderate Republicans.
It is likely that the leadership of both parties want to pass a massive debt ceiling increase because they hope the public will forget about the issue by election time, and the leadership of neither party has any desire, stomach, or backbone for actually controlling spending.
House Minority Leader Pelosi, who couldn't show the public or any other Representatives what was in Obamacare, or even let anyone read it until they passed it, hypocritically refused to comment on the debt deal until she had seen it in writing. After reading it, Pelosi complained that the debt deal raised no revenue from the rich. If Pelosi is that concerned, maybe she could just donate back some of that stimulus money which apparently somehow stimulated her personal net worth by 62 percent last year alone with income probably exempt from all those tax increases she favors. Funny how a person with "only" 35 Million Dollars isn't one of those rich people who can afford to pay more.
House Majority Leader Boehner says, "It's all spending cuts." That is only true if you count spending cuts as Washington does, which is to reduce increases in spending. In reality, it is very hard to find any real spending cuts in this package other than cuts to the military, which is frightening given the number of theaters in various parts of the world our government is committed to presently, and the number of countries involved in internal violence which could engulf our military resources at any time. Liberals and moderates are always happy to engage the U.S. militarily, but also always prefer to pretend that the military does not need to exist.
This debt deal is actually the largest debt ceiling increase in history, following on the back of last year's largest debt ceiling increase in history. According to a cnsnews article, records show that the next largest increases in debt occurred under the Presidencies of "W" Bush and Bush, Sr., both moderate Republicans.
It is likely that the leadership of both parties want to pass a massive debt ceiling increase because they hope the public will forget about the issue by election time, and the leadership of neither party has any desire, stomach, or backbone for actually controlling spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)